No. 2-- 05--1265 Fil ed: 12-27-07
IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Appeal from the Ci rcuit Court o f Du Page OF ILLINOIS, ) Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 05-- CF--1579 ) JOR GE A. MO RE IRA, ) Honorable ) Per ry R. Tho mpso n, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g. JU STI CECA

LL UM de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Fo llo win g a be nc h t r ial, de f en da nt, JorgeA . Mor

ei ra, wa s c onv

i cte d of hom e i nv as i on (720 ILCS 5/ 12- -1 1( a) (2 ) ( West 200 4) ) a nd resi dentia l bur glar y (72 0 I LCS 5/ 19- -3 (a ) ( West 200 4) ). The trial court deni

ed defend ant 's mot ion fo r a new t rial and sentence d hi m to concurrent 12- and 10-year ter m s of i m pri son men t. Defend ant appeal s, chal le ngi ng the suf fi ci ency of the evi

dence f or t he two
co nvic t io ns a nd ar gu ing t ha t his s en t en ce s a r e e xc es sive
. We affir m. I. BACKG

ROUND Ma r ga r et Gu bbin s, ag e 2 5 a nd t he vic t im, t es t ified t ha t , o n Ma y 30 , 20 05 , she wa s a lo ne in her apa rt ment, No . 1 1, at 223 9 Oa k Ridg e Dr ivein Aurora. She li

ved there wi

th her boyfriend . T he
un it is a gr ou nd- level apa rt ment w ith an e nt ry door and a s l i di

ng gl ass patio door. Shortl

y be f ore m i dn i gh t, Gubbi ns left her apart men

t t o pur chase cigaret tes. She e xi ted throug h the en try d oor, whi ch automatical

ly locks. She testi fi

ed that the

sl i di ng gl as s doorwas pr oba bly unlocke d. GubbinsNo. 2-- 05--1265

-2-

had had s ever al beer s du ring t he day , but belie ved that she was not i

ntox i ca ted . Sh e w asgone f

or about 15 or 20 mi

nutes. Wh en sh e returned someti

me after m idn igh t, Gubbi ns n ot ic ed that someone waswa lkin g in her apartment. She thought that it was her b oyf rien d. Gubbi ns un locked her f ront do or, entered t he unit , a nd t ur ned o n t he light s. S he saw a fi gure ly in g on t he f loor behin

d the co uch. Gubbi

ns f irst t hou ght t hat it w as he r bo yfriend, but t hen, when t he hea d po ppe d up , she no ticed that it was de f en da n t. Gu bbi ns screa med , "[w]h

at the f --- a re y oudoi ng i n m y ap artm en t? " D ef en da nt s tood up and l ooked shocked. According to Gubbi ns, sh e kept ye ll

in g at defend ant t o s t ay in place. She attempted to retrieve h

er telephone

to call 911. Defe

ndan t spoke t o Gubbi

ns i n Spani sh, whi ch she does no t sp ea

k. It so un

de d l i ke h e w as sa y i n g " n o, n o, n o... se n ora , s en ori ta. " D ef en da n t had hi s h an dsupi n f ron t of h i m , pa l m s f ac i n g ou t. Gubbins locked th e front door, whi ch was b ehi

nd he r, grabbed h

er telephone , and wal

ked toward th e s l i di n g g l as s d oor to l ock

i t. She w ant ed t o k eep defend ant in her ap ar t ment be cau se she t hou ght that he was st eali ng from h

er and sh e wan

ted to cal l 911. B ef

ore sh e reached th e door, defend ant tried to grab the telephone outof her han d and started hi

tt in g her arm . Gubbi

ns den ie d that she told a pol i ce of f i cer that she locked th

e pati o door. Defend ant t hen "sho ved" Gubbins o nt o t he gr ou nd and sta rte d pun ch i n g h er i n th e eye. De f

en da n t also bi t Gu b b i n s on th e f oreh ead, w

ri st, and back. He r eac hed u nder neat h her shirt and bra and f ondle d her breas

t. Defendan

t att em pted t o pu ll downGu b b i n s' s s h orts . G ub b i n s tr i ed to s crea m , but def

en da n t c o vered he

r mouth wi

th hi s han d. He used hi

s other hand to stick hi

s f in gers up her n

ose. Gubbins stoppe d f

i gh ti ng f ora bit, and d efenda nt eas ed u p. Gubbins, who is 5 feet 11 i

nch es t all, was then

able t o s t and w hile str ugg ling with d efenda nt . As s he fo ught wit h defend ant , sheNo. 2-- 05--1265

-3-

grabbed a steak knife of

f of the kitchen counter and h el d it to defendan

t's rib cage. She di

d not stab him. Gubb in

s contin ued hol din

g the knife at def

endan t' s side a nd made her way t ow ar d t he fro nt do or . S he o pene d t he do or and s cr eamed for help. Defend ant re leased Gubbins and ran do wn t he si dewal k. G ub b i n s f el l to th e g rou n d ou tsi de of h er f ron t door an d w ep t. A nei ghbor across the compl

ex and ab ove Gubb in

s's a partment off

ered to call

911. Two men
on t he balco ny acro ss t he wa y aske d Gu bbins what had ha ppe ned, and G ubbins re plied t hat so meone had tried to rape and kil

l h er. She saw a n

ei ghbor run af

ter defend ant . An ambulance ar rived and t ra nspo rt ed G ubbins to the hos pi tal
. She sustai

ned swel li ng to her righ

t eye, scratches on h

er face , rug bur ns to her kn

ees , bit e mark s o n her wr ist a nd fo re head , a nd br uises o n her back . G ubbins i den tif i ed un derga rmen ts that we re retri ev ed f rom d ef endan t's c ar as be l ongi ng to her. Micha el La ha liv es a t 227 9 Oa k Ridg e Dr ive, w hich is acr os s t he st re et fro m Gubbins's ap ar tmen t. Laha testi fi

ed that he wa s s it t ing at his co mput er in his apar t ment w hen he he ar d Gu bbins
sc r ea m. He l ooked out and saw de fen dant, Gubbi

ns, an d a m an runn in g. Laha h eard Gubb in

s scream "hel p" and "h e j ust tr ie d

to rape me , he attacked me ." He ran out of hi s apartmen t and chase d after de f enda n t. The ch as e en de d i

n a s ub di v i si on ab out th re e- qu ar ter s of a m i l e f rom th e a pa rtm ent compl ex. Def endan t appeared tired and wore only one shoe. Hi s han

d was bl eedi ng. Off ic er Ron Hi nte rlong of the Aurora police departmen t t estif ie d that h e too k def

en da n t i n to cus tody. At t he t ime of his arrest, defenda nt had "qui

te a bi t o f b lood" on his righ

t hand an d back. Off ic er Hin terlong cal

le d an am bul ance f or defendan

t. After he was treated at t he ho sp it al, defend ant was taken to the poli ce de

partm en t. Foll owi

ng a sea rch , of f i ce rs coll ec ted

f rom de f en da nt n y l on stockings fr o m his r igh t fr o nt pa nt s p o ck et an d a pa ir of f em al e underwear

f rom h i s r i gh t re ar pa n tsNo. 2-- 05--1265

-4-

pocket. Officer H inter long t est ifi ed t hat defend ant wo re only o ne shoe. Hospital personnel in form ed Hin terlong that defen

dant sustain

ed a stab wound to his

back. The cut was h

al f an in ch l ong. Off ic er Guerrmo Truji

ll o of the Aurora poli ce departmen t t estif ie d that he in terviewe d defend ant at t he po lice dep ar t ment. Defend ant consented to a vide ot aped statemen t. He appeared al er t, and there were no signs that he was in to xicated. Defen

dant stated t hat, on May

30, 200 5, he
was sitt ing in his car in t he pa rk inglot of his apartmen t comple x at 223 1 Oa k Ridg e Dr ive, d rinking beer an d l i steni ng to m us i c. D ef en da nt l i ve d i n h i s s i ster' s a

pa rtm en t, No. 7. He had started dr inking
ea r ly in the afternoon and h

ad co nsum

ed a bou t 12 be er s. D efenda nt not iced G ubbins ac ro ss t he par king lo t . S he wa s sit t ing on her patio, hav

in g a few beers. Def

endan t was att racted to her

and
was t ryingto bui

ld the c ourage to off

er her a be er and socialize wi th her. Def

endan t ranout of b eer, and h e w en

t i n to h i s a pa rtm en t to ge t m ore . W h en h e retu rned to his car , he not iced t hat Gubbins
was gone . Defend ant t oo k t wo beer s and walke d ac ro ss t he lot t o G ubbins's pa ti o. The s cre en

door
was shu t , bu t t he slid ing do o rwa s p ar t ially o pe n. De fen da nt t o ld T rujill o th at h e did s omet hing wrong when he deci ded to en ter Gub bi ns 's apartm en t. Acco rd ingto Truji

ll o, defendan

t stat ed that, o nce h

e was i nsi de, he kept calli

ng for Gubbi

ns, butt her e wa s no answ er . H e sa w t hat a bed ro om d oo r w as o pen, and he en tered. Defe

ndan t not ic ed that a dr esse r d ra wer was par t ially op ened , a ndhe loo ked inside. H e sa w und er gar ments . D efenda nt took so me of t he un de r ga rmen t s a nd ex it ed t he ap ar t men t an d w alk ed t o his c ar . He pu t so me of t he it ems i n the b acks eat of

his ca r and kept some on h

i s person . Defe

ndan t t hen noticed that he h

ad lost his keys. He r et ur ne d t o Gu bbin s's ap ar t men t t o se ar ch fo rhis keys. Defend ant was on t he floo r by the couch when Gu bbi ns wal ke d i n th roug h th e f ron t door. H e g ot sca re d. Gubbins s cr eamed andNo. 2-- 05--1265

-5-

asked what defend ant was do ing in her a par t ment. Defend ant asked her not to cal l the p oli ce. Th ere was a langu age bar rier beca use defend ant spo ke S panish a nd Gu bbins spo ke E nglish. Gubbins wal

ked to the sl

i di ng door and

shu t it. Sh e then reac hed fo r t he t elepho ne, and defend ant t r ied t o t ak e it aw ay fr o m her . A st ru ggle e nsue d. Co uche s we re fli ppe d o ver , a nd Gubbins l i kel y hi t her h ead on a wal l
. De fen da nt hit Gu bbin s be ca us e s he hit him. Gu bbin s w as ab le t o g ra b a knife in t he ki

tch en an d took a l un ge at def en da n t. Sh e stab b ed h i m . D ef en da n t tri ed to take the knife away

from Gubb in s. He reached f

or t he kn if e and then pull ed hi s han d back, re ceiving
a lacer at ion o n his right hand. Gubbi ns then opened the f

ront do or, and defen

dant fl ed. Undergarm

ents were di scovered i

n def endan t's car. His

key s were nev

er recovered. Tr ujill o int er viewed Gubbins at t he ho sp it al a bo ut o ne ho ur aft er t he inc ide nt . Sh e t o ld him t hat she lo cke d t he patio door whi le defen dant was i

n h er ap ar tmen t. G ub b i n s n ev er men ti on ed to T rujillo th at def

en da n t pu t h i s h an d ov er h er mouth and his finger s up her nos e, nor did she state t hat defend ant put his hand d ow n her shirt and t ou ched her bre ast . G ubbins also did no t mentio n t hat defendan t t ried to p ull

down her pants o r panties. Off ic er Wi ll ia m Vo gel o f the Aur or a po lice dep ar t ment t est ifi ed t hat he inte rview ed G ubbins at t he sc en e. Gu bbin s t o ld h im t ha t de fen da nt sa id "no poli ce, no police" af

ter sh e f i rs t wal ke d i n on him. She thought that he had gai ned en trance through t he pa t io do o r . Gu bbin s ne ve rt o ld Vogel that defendan t t ried to p ull

down her pants o r panties. In t he video t ape d int er view, defend ant st at ed t hat , d ur ing his first ent ry into Gubbins's ap ar tmen t, he too k undergarments. Af ter he returnedto look f

or h i s k ey s, h e s aw a g un an d b ul l ets
u nder a bed. He "di

dn't pay attention to that" and went to t he l iv in g roo m, wh

ere Gu bbin s su bse qu en t ly

dis covered hi

m. The y were both scared. Def endan t could not answer her wh enNo. 2-- 05--1265

-6-

Gubbins ask ed w hat he wa s do ingin her apart men

t. He "just

want [e d] t o g et ou t of t her e. " Gu bbins started fighting a fte r d efend an t t ried t o t ake awa y her t elepho ne. The y tr ipped on fu rnit ur e, and Gubbins migh t ha ve hit he rhe ad o n t he wa ll. G ub bins t r ie d to bi te defen dant. Defen

dant stated, "That's when I thi nk I hi t her b eca use i t hurt m e." Gubbins d id no t let g o. Defend ant want ed t o t ake her t o t he kit chen a nd leave her there so that he co uld ex it t hr o ug h t he fr o nt do o r . Gu bbin s po ke d de f en da nt w i th th e k ni f e. It wa s n

ot "se ri ous." However, "[t]hat's when [he] got reall

y s cared." Def

endan t grabbed the k ni f e. They were close t o t he fro nt do or . G ubbins o pene d t he door , and def endan t fled. Defend ant co nced ed t hat he entered Gub bi ns 's apartm en t wi thout perm

i ssi on. Wh en asked why he too k Gubbi

ns's un dergarments, defend ant replied , "At t hat momen t you do n't know. Just to have them there. T oo k them as a tro phy ." Gubbins is ta ller t han de fendant . T he eve ning o f the incident was t he first t ime that defend ant attempted to in

teract wi th Gub bi ns . W he n h e ente red the ap artm en t, onl y the tel ev i si on wason

to prov i de l i gh t. The t rial co ur t fou nd

defend ant guilt y of o ne co unt of ho me invasion c aus ing bo dily harm and
one co un t o f r es ide nt ial bu r gla ry wit h t he int en t t o co mmit a theft. Def endan t's m ot ion f or a newtrial
was den i ed. At t he se nt encing he ar ing, G ubbins pr ese nt ed a victim impact st at ement in which she descri bed t he physical

and emotional

pain she endured as a

re sult of t he incident . S he st at ed t hat she
no longe r has a se nse of saf ety wh en she is alo ne in her ho me. D efenda nt apo log ized t o G ubbins and stated t hat he had no int ent ion o f abusing he r a nd t hat he was ver y dru nk whe n he entered her hom e. He f urthe r stated th

at he wassorry

that he hi t her.No. 2-- 05--1265

-7-

In a wr itt en st at ement , d efenda nt st at ed t hat he fel t very sad on May 30, 2005, because his
m other, who had bee n visit ing fr o m Ho ndu ra s, left to return to he r hom e. A dd re ss i n g th e i n ci den t, defend ant wrote

tha t what he di d w as"stupi

d" an d that he w asrem

or se ful . He stated t hat he reentered Gu bbin s's ho me t o r et r iev e h is k eys . His intent ion wa s alwa ys to leave G ubbins's ap ar tm en t. If defen dant had wan

ted to hurt her, he woul d have grabbed theg un he s aw u nder t he bed or he would have hi

dden in the apart men

t. Defendan

t also wro te a lett er of remorse t o Gubbins. T he pr es en t en ce r ep o rt no t ed t ha t de fen da nt 's o nly pr ev io us ad ult crim

in al hi story in volv ed
a co nvi ct io n o f t r an sp o rt at io n o f a lco ho l by a pas sen ger. His parents and a si ster r eside i n Honduras, and another

siste r l i v es i n A urora . D ef

en da n t, who is si ngle, il le gally im mi grated t o t he Un

ited States in 199 9. He is 5 feet 6 inches t all and we ighs 185 pounds. Defe ndan t's parents wrote a letter expr essing the i

r s upp ort f

or th ei r s on and statin g that t hey were shocked to fi

nd out about his troubles and that he h

as al ways been

well-b ehav

ed. The tr i al cou rt s en ten ce d def en da n t to 12 years'i

m pri son men t on th e h om e i n v as i on cou n t. On the re siden

tia l bur glary count , t he court sentenced defendan t t o 10 years' im

prisonm ent, to run co nc ur r en t ly

wit h t he ho me invasion se nt enc e. In ann ounci ng the sen

tences, the court not ed that there were "relative ly

few" aggravatin

g factors and "s ome" m

iti gating f actors. The court further noted t hat it fo und significant t hat defend ant entered Gubb in s's a partment twice;that he snuck i n l ike "a thi ef" ; an

d that he eng age d in a"battle" wi th Gubbi ns as she tri ed "to exercis e her rights and h er sec uri ty." The court further noted Gubbi ns' s testim ony tha t defenda nt to ok away h

er sens e of se cu ri ty in her hom e. The trial cou rt adm oni sh ed de f en da n t of h i s a pp ea l ri gh ts pu r su an t t o Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 605(a) ( 210 Ill. 2d R. 605(a)) . Defendant did n ot move to r econsider hi s sentences. He appeals.No. 2-- 05--1265

-8- II. AN AL YSIS A . Hom e In vasi on Defend ant argu es

f i rs t th at th

e ev i den ce

wa s i n suf f i ci en t to s ustai

n th e h o me in vasi

on co nvictio n. A cc ordi

n g to def en da n t, the legi slature did not co ntemplate t he f acts in thi s case when it enacted the hom

e i nvasion statut e. He contends that he did not expectan y on e to be presen

t when he ent er ed G ubbins's ap ar t ment t o lo ok for his keys and t hat he inte nded t o lea ve befo re Gubbins returned
. He had n

o intention of comprom

is in g the personal

saf ety of an yone in side the hom

e. Ac co r di ng ly, de f

en da n t re qu ests tha

t thi s c ourt revers e the h

ome i nv as i on co nvi ct io n o r , alt er na t ive ly, reduce hi s c onv i cti on to cri m i na l tres pa ss to aresidence (720 ILCS 5/ 19- -4 (a )( 1) (Wes t 200 4) ) a nd battery (720 ILCS 5/12--3(a) (West 2004)) and rem and f or resentenci

ng. Wh en a defe ndan t challe nges the s uff ic ie ncy of t he evide nce, t he relev an t questi on i s wh ethe r, after v i ewi n g th e ev i den ce

i n th e l i gh t m ost f av ora b l e to the State , an y rati ona l tri er of fact co uld have fou nd t he esse nt ial elements of t he cr ime beyond a rea sona bl e doubt. People v . Cunni

ngha m , 21 2 I ll. 2d 274, 27 8 (200 4). Al

though the tri er of f act i s re spo ns ible for a sses sing t he cr edibility of t he witne ssesand wei

ghi ng the testim

ony, i ts determi nation i s not conclus iv

e. Pe o ple v . Sm

i th , 18 5 I ll. 2d 532 , 5 42 ( 199 9) . R at her , w e will rever se a co nvictio n wher e t he evi dence isso unreasonable , im probable, or u

n sa ti sf actory as to cre atea re as ona

bl e doubt of the def endan t's g uil t. Sm i th , 18 5 I ll. 2d at 542. Stat uto ry i

nterpretat ion pres ents a questi on of law, which we rev ie w de novo . Peo ple v. Bradley M. , 352 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 29 1, 294 ( 2004)
. The home i

nvasi on stat ute pr ovides, in

relevan t par ts: "(a) A per so n who isnot a p ea ce o ffice rac t ing in t he line o f du t y co mmit s ho me i nv as i on when w itho ut aut hor ity ** * he o r she knowin gly enters the dwel

li ng pl ace of anotherNo. 2-- 05--1265

-9-

and re mains in such dw elling place u nt il he or she k now s o r ha s re aso n t o k now t hat one or mor e pe rso ns is pr ese nt and
*** (2) Intentional

ly causes an

y i nj ury *** to any

person or persons withi

n such dwel li ng p l ace [.]" 72 0 ILC S 5/12 --11(a )(2) (W est 2004). The pur pos e of t he ho me inv as io n st at ut e is to protect the saf ety of p ersons i

n thei r hom es. Pe o ple v. S helby , 123 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 15 3, 163 ( 1984)
. Defend ant con

ten dsth at t her e wa s no evi denc e t hat he lay in wait fo r G ubbins o r t hat he remai ned i n h er h om e to in tentional ly cause he rinju ry. R at he r , t he ev ide nc e s ho we d t ha t , at t he t ime that the in jury occurred, de f

en da nt d i d n ot r ema in int he ho me b ec au se he wa s n o t int en di ng t o st ay; he int en de d t o lea ve . Ad dr es sin g h is s ec o nd en t ry into Gubbi ns's ho me, d efenda nt not es t hat t he evi dence sho we d t ha t he wa s no t lying in wa it fo r he r t o r et ur n, bu t was sho cke d whe n Gubbins entered. Furthermore, he n ot es thathe di

d not remai

n i n the h ome once h

e knew that

Gubb in s was pr es en t. Hewa nte d to lea

ve assoon aspos si bl e. A cc ordi ng to de f en da nt, he di d n ot re main with t he i nte nti on of harm in g Gubb in s. Rather, the harm

occurred because h

e was try i n g to leave. Defend ant notes that he entered

Gubbins's apa rt ment un ar med as ad dit io na l ev ide nc e t ha t he wa s no t lying in
wai t. Th is e sta

bl i sh ed tha t he di d n ot ex pe ct a ny one to be pre sent a nd tha t he ha d n o i nte nti on of
co mpro misi

ng t he pe rso nal safet y of anyo ne inside. In su m, de fendant concedes t hat he en tered Gubbins's home w itho ut aut hor ity and caused injury to her. He argues t hat the o ff ensewa s no t ho me i nv as i on be ca us e h e d id n o t lie in w ait fo rGu bbin s t o co me ho me a nd r ema in th ere wi th th e i n ten t to t hr ea t en he rpe r so na l sa fet y o rt o ca us e h er ha rm.No. 2-- 05--1265

-10-

Def enda nt 's argumen

ts are based on h

is readin g of the hom

e i nvasion statut e. Defen

dan t contends t ha t t he wo r d " r ema ins" in t he st at ut e is amb igu o us in t ha t it co uld be in terpret ed to mean
mer ely st ill being pr ese nt in the dwelli ng pl ace or more delib erately

wai ting i n the dwel

li ng pl ace. Giv en t his alleged ambiguit y, de fendant ur ges t hat we e xaminet he legislat ive histo ry o f the statut e, whi ch he reads as

cla r ifying t ha t t he leg isla t ur e a dd ed a r eq uir eme nt t ha t t he alle ge d o ffen de rlie in wai t for a p erson

to enter the dwe l l i

ng b ef ore cau si ng i nj ury to that pers on. We do n

ot ad dr es s t he leg isla t ive hist o ry, b ec au se we co nc lud e t ha t t he st at ut e is
unam biguous. Mere u se

of the word"rem

ai ns ," wi thout m ore, i ndi cates a legi slati ve i nten t to requi re o nly t ha t t he un au t ho r ize d e nt r an t be pr es en t in t he dw elling. We do n

ot ag re e wi th de f en da n t th at, aswri tten , th e w ord " rem

ai ns " c oul d b e re ad to mea n e i the r pu rpos el y wai ti ng orsimp ly st ill being pr es en t. Had t he le gis la

ture intended

t hat t he ent ra nt re main in the dw elling for a par t icular re aso n, it would ha

ve i ncl uded statut ory languag e evi nci ng t ha t in tent. In our vi ew, us e of

the word "remai ns" mere l y req ui res tha t the unau thor ize d entr an t be pre sent i n th e d we l l i ng , re ga rdl es s of whether he o r she intend s t o w ait fo r a per so n t o e nt er t he dw elling. As the St at e no t es, had t he l egislaturedesi

redto i nc l ude asan el em en t of ho me inv as io n t he r eq uir eme nt t ha t a p er so n r ema in in t he dw elling fo rt he pu r

po se o f ca us ing inju ry t o an o t he r , it would ha ve i ncl uded l anguage si

mi la r t o t hat for t he off

en se of resi den tia l bur glary, whi ch

occurs when a person "knowi

ngl y a nd wi thout
au th ori ty ent er s o r k now ingly and wit hou t aut hor ity re mains within t he dwel l i ng p l ace of a nothe r, or any part t hereof, wi

th the in tent t o commi

t t herei n a f el ony or thef

t." 72 0 ILCS 5/19-- 3(a) ( West 2004)
. Mo reove

r, t he st at ut e pr ovid es t hat it is an a ffi rmat ive defens e t o a home invas ion c ha rg e when:No. 2-- 05--1265

-11- "t he acc use d who kno wingly ente rs t he dw elling pla ce of an ot her and rem ai ns i n such dwe lli ng pla ce un ti l he o rshe kn o ws o r

ha s r ea so n t o kn o w t ha t o ne o rmo r e p er so ns is pr ese nt either im

medi ately l eaves such prem

ises o r sur re nder s t o t he pe rso n or per so ns law fully pres en t therei n wi thout ei ther a ttemptin g to caus e or cau si

ng s erious b odi l

y i nj ury to any pers on pre sen

t therei n." 720 IL CS 5/1 2--11(b ) (We st 2004 ). Al thoughde f

en da nt d i d n ot raise thi s def ense be l ow, th

e p rovi si on c l ea rl y ref ute s h i s a rgu men t on appeal that t he l egi slature did not contemplate the facts i n thi s case wh

en i t enacted the statut e. The l egislaturedid contemplate t hese f acts, and it pr ovided a defense t o a ho me inva sio n ch ar ge if a defend ant i

n de f en da n t' s p osi ti on i m med i ate l y l ea v es or sur re n derswi

th out c au si

n g or atte m pti n g to cause i nj ury . Had def

endan t lef t Gubbi ns' s prem is es or surrendered to her without causin g her seri ous bo dily i n j ur y , he c oul d h av e i n v oke d a n af f i rm ati v e def ense to hom e i nv asi on. Howe

ver, defend ant did inju r e G ub bins , de pr iving himse lf of t he affir mat ive de fen se an d le av ing himse lf sq ua r ely w it hin the re ach of s ubs ection (a)(2). Giv en our i n ter pr eta ti on of th e statu te and def endan t's concessi

ons thathe ent er ed G ubbins's ho me wi th out a uth ori ty an d th at h e i n j ur ed h er , w e c on cl

ude th at th e e v i den ce

wa s s uf f i ci en t to sus t ain defend ant 's ho me invasion c onvict ion. B. Re siden

tia l Burgl ary Next , de f enda n t a rg ues t hat t he St at e failed t o p ro ve beyo nd a r eas ona ble do ubt t hat he
com m i tted resi den tia l bur glary . He con ten dsth at th e ev i den ce

di d n ot es tab l i sh th at, at t he t ime he entered Gu b b i n s' s a pa rtm en t, he i n ten de d to c om

m i t a th ef t th erei n . D ef en da n t re qu ests th at we reverse hi s c onv i cti on or , a l ter

n ati vely, re duc e it t o c riminal tre spa ss t o a re sidenc e and t heft and
reman d the cause f

or resentenci

ng.No. 2-- 05--1265

-12-

As we n oted ab ove, the res i den

tia l bur glary statut e states that a person comm its resi dentia l bur glary when he o r she "k

n owi n gl y an d wi th out a uth ori ty en ter s or kn owi n gl y an d wi th out a uth ori ty re mains within t he dw elling pla ce o f an o t he r , o ran y pa rt t he r eo f, wit h t he int en t t o co mmit t he r ein
a felony o r t he ft." 720 ILCS 5/19--3(a) (West 2004). "To obtain a convi ction f or residential bu r gl ar y, the Stat e m

ust prove that the off

ender's entry i nto a dwell

in g was b oth

wi th out a uth ori ty and wi th th e i nte nt to c om m i t a f el on y or a th ef t. " In re Matt hew M. , 335 Ill . App. 3d 276, 282 (2002 ). Intent may

be i nf erred from s

urroundin g ci rcumstances an

d ma y b e proved

by ci rcumstantial evi dence. Pe opl

e v . M ag gette , 195 Ill . 2d 336, 354 (2001 ). "A [fac t finder] may inf er t he o ffender 's intent to comm

it a resi dentia l b urglary from proo f that the off

ender un law fully ent er ed a building
co nt aining per so nal pr op er t y that co uld be t he subj ect o f a l arceny." Matt hew M. , 33 5 I ll. App. 3d at 28 2- 83
. "T he infe r en ce is gr ou nded in human expe rience which just ifi es t he as sumpt ion t hat t he unl awful entry was

not purpo seles s, and i

n the a bsence of other pro of, indi cates t hef t as t he m ost like ly purpo se." People v. Rossi , 112 Il l . Ap p. 2d 20 8, 212 ( 1969)
. Ot her re levant ci rcumstances in cl ude the tim

e, place , and m

ann er of entry

in to the premi

ses, the off

en de r 's a ct iv ity wit hin the premi ses, and any

al ternative e

xpl anati ons off

ered for the off

ender's presence. Ma

gg ette , 195 Ill . 2d at 354. Defend ant asse rt s t hat his intent when he ent er ed G ubbins's ap ar t ment was si mpl y to in tro duce himself. He argues that hi s testim ony was unreb

utt ed that he told the poli ce thath e had n

ot ic ed Gubbins when

she w as sit t ing o n her pat io and t hat he wishe d t o be co me acq uaint ed w ith he r . Defend ant wa nt ed t o o ffer he ra b ee ran d, so , we nt insid e h is apartm en t to get more b eer. When he went back outside, Gubb in s was n o longer there. Accordi

ng to defenda

nt, there was no evi

dence that he h ad seen G ubbi ns l eave h er apartment. He f

urther notes t hat he testif

ie d that he knocked

on herNo. 2-- 05--1265

-13-

door and cal le d for her. Wh

en n obody answered, he wal

ked i nsi de to seei f

sh e w as i n th e a pa rtm en t. Defend ant co nt inu ed t o ca ll fo rGu bbin s w hile he was i n the ap ar t ment . T his a t t emp t t o ide nt ify himself, ac cordi

n g to def en da n t, w as i n con siste n t wi th having a larc eno us int ent when he ent er ed t he home . He als o points to his respons e to t he polic e when asked wh y he took Gub bi ns 's und erwe ar: "At th at m

om en t, y ou don ' t kn

ow. Ju st to hav e t hem the re . T oo k t hem as a t ro phy." Defend ant as se rtst hat t his st at ement sho ws t hat his intent t o t ake t he item s was f ormulated aft er he ent er ed t he apartment an

d not before that tim

e. We concl ude that no reversal

is warranted. Defend ant did no t app ro ach G ubbins's ap ar t ment viat he f ron t en tran ce , nor di d he k noc k on the f ron t door. R ather, he wal ke d to the b ac k of

t he un it and en tere d v i a the p ati

o door. W e re

j ec t de f en da nt' s a ss erti

on th at the tri al cou rt made an unrea so na ble i

nf eren ce wh en i t stated tha

t def endan t snu ck i n th rough the p ati o door. Notwithstandi

ng def endan t's self-serv

in g testim ony tha t he knocked on the patio door after he saw Gubbins sitt ing t her e and called o ut for her befo re ent er ing, d efenda nt never t heless e nt er ed t he ap ar t ment o f a

per so n he co nced ed he did no t kno w ( aft er wat ching her for seve ra l hou rs) , via t he
rear ent ry, a fte r midnight , a nd wit hou t any i n di ca ti on th at the oc cu

pa nt wasi ns i de . It w asnot un r ea so nable f

ort he t ria l co ur t t o find t hat de fend ant po ss es se d t he r eq uis it e int ent t o co mmit a t heft at the ti me of en try . The c ourt w asnot req ui red to f i nd tha t de f en da nt' s entr y vi a the p ati o door was, as defend ant suggests, consi stent with h is statement that he saw

Gub bi ns there al l day and theref

ore went t o he r a par t ment t o mee t Gubbins an d n ot to c om m i t a th ef t. N or w as

th e c our t re qui re d to find
cr ed ible defen

dant's statem

ent t hat he de cided t o t ake Gubbins's unde rg ar ments as t ro phies o n t he spur of the momen t. Agai n, gi ve n th e c i rcu m sta nc esof h i s e n try i n to t he ap ar t ment a nd viewing t heNo. 2-- 05--1265

-14-

evi dence in t he ligh t mo st fav o r ab le t o t he St at e, t he t r ial c o ur t r ea so na bly co uld find t ha t , at t he t ime of en try i n to Gu b b i n s' s a pa rtm en t, d ef en da n t i n ten de d to c om

m i t a th ef t. In sum, we fin d tha

t the ev i den ce was suf

f i cien t to sustai n de f endan t's re siden tia l bur glary co nvictio n. C. Sentences Fin ally, defen

dant argues thathi s sen

tences are excessi

ve an d requests that we r ed uc e t he m. He contends t hat his cri

mi nal hi sto ry consi st s o nly of one pet t y offense, t hat his back gr ou nd and family su ppor t sugge st th

at h i s prospe ctsf

orre habilitat ion ar e ver y goo d, and t hat his char act er and attitud e ab out the cri

me sh ow that he i s un

l i kel y to comm i t anothe r cri me. "The propriety of a

sentence is a ma tt er ly in g withi n the di scretion of the trial court , and we willnot interf

ere with that

discretion unl

ess it i s abused." People v . Sven , 365 Ill . App. 3d 226, 241 (2006 ). A sen

tence i s deem

ed exces si

ve and r epr ese nt s an a buse of d iscre t ion o nly where " t he sentence is gre at ly at var iance w ith t he sp irit a nd pu rp os e o f the l aw , or m an i f estl y disprop orti

on ate to the natur e of the offense." People v . Stacey , 193 Il l . 2d 203 , 210 (2 000). P r elim ina r ily, we note t ha t de fen da nt wa s a dmo nish ed pu r su an t t o Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 605(a)(3) (210 Il

l . 2d R. 60 5( a) (3 )) a

b out th e n ec es si ty of f il in g a m ot ion to reconsi der hi s sen tence to preserve an

y s entenci ng i ssues f

or appellate revie

w. However, defen

dant did n ot fi le a moti on to recon sider h

i s se nten ces . He re quests that we

revi ew h i s se nten ces f or pl ai n error. General ly , the fai lure to fi le a motion to reconside

ra sentenc e wai

ves an y s entenci ng i ssues f orrevi ew. People v . Reed , 17 7 I l l . 2d 38 9, 3 93 -9 4 ( 19 97 ). H owev er , w e m ay re v i ew th e iss ues under the pla in -error doctr in

e. See Peo ple v. Bre edlo ve , 213 Ill . 2d 509, 521- 22 (2004 ) (a Ru le 605 (a)de f

en da nt w ho f ai l s to p rope

rl y pre serv e s en

ten ci ng i ss ue s f orappeal is not precluded

f romNo. 2-- 05--1265

-15-

ra ising a sentenc in

g is sue on appeal

under the w el l -establ i shed pl

ai n-e rror doctri

ne ). When re viewing
a se nt en ce fo rpla in

error, a court m

ust f i rst determ

i ne whethe r error occu

rred a t all
. People v . Price , 375 I ll. A pp . 3d 68 4, 69 6 ( 20 07 )
. I f t he co ur t ide nt ifies an er r o r , it must next co nsider whet her t he defend ant ca

n ob tai n r el i ef un der ei the r of the two pr ong s of the pl ai n- err orrule: (1) the evidence was close ly bal anced; or (2) t he error was of such gravi ty as to deny

the defe ndan t a fai r pr oc eed ing
. Price , 375 Ill. App. 3d at 696. Here, we do not find an y error in the trial court's sentence s, an d, therefore, do n

ot co n si der w h eth er de f en da n t ca n me et e i

the r of the two pr ong s of the pl ai n- err or rule. "The defendan

t's his to ry, character, rehabi

li tat iv e pot ential , t he seriousness of t he o ffense, t he need to protect so ci

ety an d th e n ee d f or dete rre n ce an d pun i sh men t are a l l f actors to be consi

dered in fash ioni ng a sentence." Peopl e v . D on ath , 357 Ill . Ap p. 3d 57 , 72 (20 05). "The re is a st ro ng pre su m ption that t he t rial co ur t base d it s sent encing det er minatio n on p ro per legal r eas oning , a nd t he courtis p r es ume d t o ha ve co nsid er ed an y evid encei nm i ti gation that is b efore it." Peo ple v. Bowman, 357 Il

l . Ap p. 3 d 290 , 3 03- 04 ( 200 5) . I t is not ou r func t ion t o r ewe igh t he r elevant sent encing fact or s o r su bst itu t e o ur judg ment fo r t hat of t he tria l court. Pe o ple v. St r eit , 142 Ill . 2d 13, 19 ( 1991)
. A convi ction of h ome i nvasion car

ries a sent enc e o f an ywh er e fr o m 6 ye ar s t o 30 yea r s in prison . 72 0 IL CS 5/1 2-- 11( c) (W es t 200 4); 730 IL CS 5/5 --8 --1 (a) (3) (Wes t 200 4). A con vi cti on of r es ide nt ial bu r gla ry ca rr ies a s en t en ce o f an ywh er e fr o m 4 t o 15 yea r s inpri son. 720 IL CS 5/1 9-- 3( b) (Wes t 200 4) ; 73 0 I LCS 5/ 5- -8
-- 1( a) (4 ) ( West 200 4) . T he t rial co ur t sent ence d de fend ant to co ncur re nt t er ms o f 12 yea r s' imp r iso nme nt fo rho me in vasi on a nd 10 y ea rs ' i m prison men t f or resi dentia l burglary . In announcin

g the sentences, t he t r ial c o ur t no t ed t ha t it found s ign if ic ant thatNo. 2-- 05--1265

-16-

defend ant entered

Gubb in s's a partment twice;that he snuck in like "a t hie f"; an d t ha t he en ga ge d in
a "bat t le" wit h Gubbins as she tried "to exerci se her ri ghts and h er securi ty." The court further noted Gubbins's t est imony that defen dant too k away

her se n se of se cu ri ty i n h er h om e. De f en da n t as se rts t hat t he trial

cou rt' s s en ten ce s of twi ce th e statu tory m i n i m um s a redisprop orti

on ate to the off enses be ca us e t he co ur t did no t ad eq ua t ely t ak e in t o ac co un t de fen da nt 's r eh ab ilit at ive po t en t ial. We con cl ude tha t the trial cou rt di d n ot abus e its discr et ion. Defe ndan t do es not all

ege that t he trial court cons i dered

i nc omp eten

t evi den ce or i m proper a ggrav ati ng f actors or igno re d pe rt inent mitigat ingfactors. Rat her , he co nt ends t hat t he co ur t er re d bec aus e it fa iled t o a cco rd sufficient weight t o his r ehabilitat ivepot entia l a nd other mi

tigatin g factors. Al

though defen

dant correct ly

notes that hi s l ac k of sig nific an t cr iminal h ist o ry we igh s in fa vo ro f les se rse nt en ce s, as do his sup po rt ive fa mily, steady em

ploy me nt, and rem

orse, t he trial

cou rt f oun d s i gn i f i ca n t th at def en da n t ch ose to engage in a physical alt er cat ion wit h Gubbins w hen she dis co ve r ed him in he r ap artm en t. W e c an not concl ude that this

fi ndi ng was un

reasonabl e. As the trial

co ur t no t ed , Gu bbin s w r o t e in he rvic t im im pact statement that defen

dant too k away

her sens e of securi ty i n he r own home. Gub

bi ns testif ie d that she su stai

ne d swe l l i

ng to her ri

ght eye, s cratches on

he r face, bite mar ks o n her wr ist a nd forehead, and br uises o n her back . D efenda nt , t hus, enga ged in a physical alt er cat ion wit h Gubbins that wa s b eyo nd t he minimu m ne ce ss ar y t o co mm it hom e i nvasion. See 720 ILCS 5/12--11(a)(2) (West2004) (stat ute requires t ha t de fen da nt int en t io na lly ca us e " an y i n j ur y ") . We f ur th er n ote th at, as t o t he re sident ial burg lary co nvictio n, d efenda nt t wice e nt er ed G ubbins's apartment. See Pe o ple
v. Eva ns , 373 Ill . App. 3d 948, 968 (2007) ("t he m ost im po rtant fact or a cour t considers wh en dec idinga s en

ten cei s th e s eri ous ne ss of the of f ense ");se e al so Peo ple v. Hu ddl es ton , 212 Ill . 2d107, 145 (2004) ("[a] co urt may well fi nd that t he seriousness

of the offense

outwe i gh s a

ny ex pre ss i on ofNo. 2-- 05--1265

-17-

sorrow"). W e c onc l

ude tha t i t wa s n ot an abuse of d iscre t ion t o find t hat defend ant 's violent response, along with h

is unl awful entries int o Gu bbin s's ap ar t men t , we igh ed he av ily in agg ra vat ion. Accordingl

y, we uphold the sentences. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoin

g reasons, the j udgme

nt of the ci

rcuit court o f Du

Pa ge Co un t y is aff

irm ed. Af fi rmed. GROM ETER, P.J ., and HUTCHINSO N, J., c oncu

r.